Hall of Fame bias against Non-Superbowl winners?

[ADDiKT]

I have no doubt in my mind that the people voting for the Hall of Fame are biased against players who didn't win a Super Bowl or they put too much into "off-the-field" issues...

I don't really hear anyone mention that Mark Clayton should be in the H.O.F. -- So I will take this opportunity to just point out a few numbers...

Mark Clayton's Career: 5 Time Pro-Bowler
11 Years - 582 Rec. - 8,974 Yards - 15.4 Avg. - 84 TDs
(Still holds the AFC record for most TDs in a season with 18 "1984")​

Lynn Swann's Career: 3 Time Pro-Bowler
9 Years - 336 Rec. - 5,462 Yards - 16.3 Avg. - 51 TDs​

If someone told you that 1 of those 2 Wide Receivers was in the H.O.F. - Who would you say it was??? Mark Duper also has better Numbers...

Mark Duper's Career: 3 Time Pro-Bowler
11 Years - 511 Rec. - 8,869 Yards - 17.4 Avg. - 59 TDs
(Mark Duper was brought up on charges for conspiracy and intent to distribute cocaine - those charges were dropped the following year. That's probably going to hurt his chances)​

The most outrageous travesty in H.O.F. history is the fact that Joe Namath is in the Hall...

Joe Namath's Career: 5 Time Pro-Bowler
13 Years - 1,886 Comp. - 3,762 Att. - 50.1% - 27,663 Yards - 173 TDs - 220 INTs
(He is in the Hall for being the golden boy of that era and for making 1 "bold" prediction.)​

Just for comparison sake...

Jake Plummer's Career:
10 Years - 2,484 Comp. - 4,350 Att. - 57.1% - 29,253 Yards - 161 TDs - 161 INTs
(I don't think anyone thinks that Jake The Snake is H.O.F bound)


The bottom line is that if Lynn Swann is in the Hall, Mark Duper and Mark Clayton need to be atleast considered...

BTW... I am not saying that I want Plummer in the Hall, I just want that sorry JETS QB removed from the H.O.F. :evil:

 

[Alex44]

If you go by pure numbers Bob Griese doesnt deserve to be in and neither does Bradshaw.

Your comparing players from completely different eras and you cant do that.

 

[Mainge]

If you go by pure numbers Bob Griese doesnt deserve to be in and neither does Bradshaw.

Your comparing players from completely different eras and you cant do that.

Agreed. Different era's, different philosophies, and statistical expectations.


Chambers has better numbers than Warfield, but I don't think anyones preparing Chambers bust anytime soon.

 

[Geforce]

Hall of Fame voters are not biased against anyone. They just don't always know what they are doing. Art Monk was on a Super Bowl winner and was the NFL all-time leader in pass receptions when he retired. Yet he is still not in the Hall of Fame.
Clayton and Duper will not get in as long as some of the voters believe it was Marino who made them and not that they complimented each other.

 

[GreenMachine]

Joe Klecko, Winston Hill....

 

[Mr.Majestik]

I wouldn't call it bias, it's giving the benefit of the doubt

I have no doubt in my mind that the people voting for the Hall of Fame are biased against players who didn't win a Super Bowl or they put too much into "off-the-field" issues...

I don't really hear anyone mention that Mark Clayton should be in the H.O.F. -- So I will take this opportunity to just point out a few numbers...

Mark Clayton's Career: 5 Time Pro-Bowler
11 Years - 582 Rec. - 8,974 Yards - 15.4 Avg. - 84 TDs
(Still holds the AFC record for most TDs in a season with 18 "1984")​

Lynn Swann's Career: 3 Time Pro-Bowler
9 Years - 336 Rec. - 5,462 Yards - 16.3 Avg. - 51 TDs​

If someone told you that 1 of those 2 Wide Receivers was in the H.O.F. - Who would you say it was??? Mark Duper also has better Numbers...

Mark Duper's Career: 3 Time Pro-Bowler
11 Years - 511 Rec. - 8,869 Yards - 17.4 Avg. - 59 TDs
(Mark Duper was brought up on charges for conspiracy and intent to distribute cocaine - those charges were dropped the following year. That's probably going to hurt his chances)​

The most outrageous travesty in H.O.F. history is the fact that Joe Namath is in the Hall...

Joe Namath's Career: 5 Time Pro-Bowler
13 Years - 1,886 Comp. - 3,762 Att. - 50.1% - 27,663 Yards - 173 TDs - 220 INTs
(He is in the Hall for being the golden boy of that era and for making 1 "bold" prediction.)​

Just for comparison sake...

Jake Plummer's Career:
10 Years - 2,484 Comp. - 4,350 Att. - 57.1% - 29,253 Yards - 161 TDs - 161 INTs
(I don't think anyone thinks that Jake The Snake is H.O.F bound)


The bottom line is that if Lynn Swann is in the Hall, Mark Duper and Mark Clayton need to be atleast considered...

BTW... I am not saying that I want Plummer in the Hall, I just want that sorry JETS QB removed from the H.O.F. :evil:

The HOF membership is subjective. Players affiliated with better teams do get priority over players who didn't have the good fortune of playing on a champion. But be very careful when advocating for a player based on statistical metrics. Different eras yield different results. In the 1980s and 90s we saw a bunch of quarterbacks start throwing for 60% completions, in the seventies 50% was considered a gold standard, why? Because the West Coast Offense featured short, slanting routes that were easier to complete then the medium to long-range passes of the previous era, and as a result quarterbacks began to see their percentages go way up. At the same time it wasn't unusual in the seventies to see Pro Bowl wide receivers like Roger Carr of the Colts, Stanley Morgan of the Patriots, Harold Carmichael of the Eagles, etc, have these huge receiving averages that are unheard of today--20-22 ypr.

When considering defensive ends for the Hall of Fame, the players of 20-30 years ago have a huge advantage over today's players, the rules allowed DBs to mug the wide receiver so long as the pass wasn't in the air, you could close-line receivers, defensive linemen were allowed to head slap, the more vertical passing games of the day took longer to complete thereby exposing the quarterback for longer periods of time then today's passers are generally exposed. Coy Bacon of the Bengals had a preposterous 26-sacks in a 14 game season in 1976. You're not going to compare the top defensive ends of today with those of yesterday by simply measuring the number of sacks they had (the sack wasn't even a kept statistic until 1982, but some researchers from NFL Films have actually gone back and tallied unofficial numbers from the sixities and seventies.) Why is Howie Long in the HOF? And why did he get in only two years after he was eligible? It took Jack Youngblood 15 years. Elvin Bethea twenty-years to get in. Long was not a better player then either one.

And you can't compare the Marks brothers to Stallworth and Swann either. Swann's inclusion was dubious, but the team he played for was so dominant it's not surprising. The difference in offenses between 1975 and 1985 was the difference between a Chevelle and a Lotus. Air Coryell and the West Coast Offense changed everything radically. By the ninties it wasn't unusual to have ten guys with more then a hundred catches a season. In 1975, the most receptions by a receiver was 60 by Reggie Rucker of the Bengals (Bill Walsh was Bengals' OC at the time), most of the franchise receivers caught 40-50. Today it's double that, so it's ridiculous to compare Clayton and Duper with Swann and Stallworth and say if the former are in, the latter deserve a look too.

Earl Campbell is in the HOF. Ottis Anderson isn't, and never will be, but he played at the same time as Campbell, and has better career stats. If you're going to induct players based on some arbitrary statistical plateau, we are going to have a lot of mediocre players in the HOF. Wide receiver Terence Mathis has career stats that are nearly identical to Hall of Famer Charlie Joiner, are we going to induct him too? Harry Carson got in last year, but Robert Brazile, who was drafted by the Oilers the year before Carson was drafted by the Giants isn't in the HOF, and Brazile was named to the All-Decade Team. The reason Carson is in and Brazile isn't is because Carson is wearing two Super Bowl rings and Brazile is not.

 

[jguig]

Maybe they are showing preference to players who repeatedly get busted for Coke and hanging with Prostitutes.

 

[CrunchTime]

As someone pointed out when Lynn Swann and our own great Paul Warfield played the game was basically run-oriented.

You cant compare them.

I do believe the HOF is biased towards players who have played in SBs but if a player had an outstanding career like Marino they will not be overlooked.They could be overshadowed by other players with equivalent talent.

The selection process is subjective so there are bound to be some inequities.

 

[nyjunc]

I have no doubt in my mind that the people voting for the Hall of Fame are biased against players who didn't win a Super Bowl or they put too much into "off-the-field" issues...

I don't really hear anyone mention that Mark Clayton should be in the H.O.F. -- So I will take this opportunity to just point out a few numbers...

Mark Clayton's Career: 5 Time Pro-Bowler
11 Years - 582 Rec. - 8,974 Yards - 15.4 Avg. - 84 TDs
(Still holds the AFC record for most TDs in a season with 18 "1984")​

Lynn Swann's Career: 3 Time Pro-Bowler
9 Years - 336 Rec. - 5,462 Yards - 16.3 Avg. - 51 TDs​

If someone told you that 1 of those 2 Wide Receivers was in the H.O.F. - Who would you say it was??? Mark Duper also has better Numbers...

Mark Duper's Career: 3 Time Pro-Bowler
11 Years - 511 Rec. - 8,869 Yards - 17.4 Avg. - 59 TDs
(Mark Duper was brought up on charges for conspiracy and intent to distribute cocaine - those charges were dropped the following year. That's probably going to hurt his chances)​

The most outrageous travesty in H.O.F. history is the fact that Joe Namath is in the Hall...

Joe Namath's Career: 5 Time Pro-Bowler
13 Years - 1,886 Comp. - 3,762 Att. - 50.1% - 27,663 Yards - 173 TDs - 220 INTs
(He is in the Hall for being the golden boy of that era and for making 1 "bold" prediction.)​

Just for comparison sake...

Jake Plummer's Career:
10 Years - 2,484 Comp. - 4,350 Att. - 57.1% - 29,253 Yards - 161 TDs - 161 INTs
(I don't think anyone thinks that Jake The Snake is H.O.F bound)


The bottom line is that if Lynn Swann is in the Hall, Mark Duper and Mark Clayton need to be atleast considered...

BTW... I am not saying that I want Plummer in the Hall, I just want that sorry JETS QB removed from the H.O.F. :evil:

it is a complete joke that Swann is in the hall but that doesn't mean another mistake needs to be made by making Clayton a HOfer. he was a good WR made to look alot better by playing w/ the best QB of all-time.

namath's #s aren't Hall worthy but he was more important for what he did off the field. On the field he dopesn't belong but incorporating the significance of SB III and the role he played then he deseres it.

 

[TGall13]

WOW!! A Jets fan admitting Marino was the "best QB of all-time"
And I do agree with what you're saying about Namath. He was larger than life back in the day. And I'm old enough to remember

 

[themole]

Someone please tell me why Bob Keuchenberg , isn't in already. I smell bias here!

 

[Mr.Majestik]

Kooch's proponents are fans, they are rarely objective

Someone please tell me why Bob Keuchenberg , isn't in already. I smell bias here!

To make it simple. Kuechenberg was All-Pro twice in his career. Every other offensive linemen from Kooch's era presently enshrined in the HOF was an All-Pro at least six times. There are several offensive linemen from Kooch's era with the same credentials not in the HOF, a couple at tackle, a position considerably more difficult to play then guard--George Kunz of the Colts, and Russ Washington of the Chargers. There is a fan appreciation site on the web for Rams' guard Rich Saul, who played at the same time as Kooch, who went to 6 Pro Bowls, like Kooch, and of course, Rams' fans think Saul should be in the HOF too (not going to happen because he was only All-Pro once.) We should tack a "Why Kuechenberg is never getting in the Hall" thread to the top of the board.

 

[themole]

To make it simple. Kuechenberg was All-Pro twice in his career. Every other offensive linemen from Kooch's era presently enshrined in the HOF was an All-Pro at least six times. There are several offensive linemen from Kooch's era with the same credentials not in the HOF, a couple at tackle, a position considerably more difficult to play then guard--George Kunz of the Colts, and Russ Washington of the Chargers. There is a fan appreciation site on the web for Rams' guard Rich Saul, who played at the same time as Kooch, who went to 6 Pro Bowls, like Kooch, and of course, Rams' fans think Saul should be in the HOF too (not going to happen because he was only All-Pro once.) We should tack a "Why Kuechenberg is never getting in the Hall" thread to the top of the board.

This one oughta really go against your grain then. The ENTIRE 72 Team should be enshrined IMO.

35 years standing as the only undefeated team should count for something!

After all, the game is constructed around "Team" effort rather than individual effort.

 

[Mr.Majestik]

Re:

This one oughta really go against your grain then. The ENTIRE 72 Team should be enshrined IMO.

35 years standing as the only undefeated team should count for something!

After all, the game is constructed around "Team" effort rather than individual effort.

There are monuments to the 1972 team throughout the Hall of Fame already.